In my own case, I always felt that the digitally enhanced (by Aura or Mama Bear) pickup signals were a bit more feedback prone than the dry signals.

Funny you mention that. Yesterday I tried to implement the extra filter stage from the Tonedexter patent (presumely the secret button).

When you compute a "minimum phase" filter , meaning that all the frequency information interfere constructively in time domain at te begining of the impulse and you use it as a raw IR (just for test since it is meant to be blend in the patent).... Man! I got huge feedback.

Dont draw any conclusion on the Tonedexter:
1) I am using a Lyric microphone which is not the 1st target of Tonedexer.
2) I am testing a "part of the algorythm" for test and I am not even using as intended.

My conclusion so far, it that you get a better "directness/immediacy" in sound but are more feedback prone. I am pretty sure they don't blend the "minimum phase" filter as is... Or I got something wrong, but It's a good lesson.

There is a way to manage feedback through phase frequency discrimination. I think it can't be bad. I mean before we only had notch filter and whole phase signal reversal. It would be interesting to explore phase modulation specific to the low frequency resonance of guitar.

Previously I've shown my own IR to a cousin in total different condition (JAM 150 amp on a hard floor) and It was much more prone to feedback at his place. I believe for Lyric users. Digital IR needs to have a specific strategy, especially as far as the phase is concerned. However since the low-end is "created" from scratch, it can probably tuned to avoid feedback.

I still think there is hope. I did not spend any time digging in that direction...

I have plenty of hope for ToneDexter. If it manages to outperform the typical Aura setup (as done with stock sound images) and match or exceed the performance of the optimal Aura setup (as done with custom sound images), it'll be a solid step forward in the realm of guitar amplification. It'll certainly be significantly cheaper and much quicker than buying an Aura preamp and having custom sound images made for one or more instruments.

I agree with the above. ^^^
Having a blend control between raw pickup and wave map on the tonedexter would be desirable for me.

Unless I'm mistaken, the WaveMap itself is a set of instructions which tells ToneDexter how to process the dry pickup signal to make it near identical to the signal which one would get from miking the guitar at the same time. (Thus eliminating the need for an actual mic, and the resulting feedback problems, in an amplified sound environment.)

ToneDexter creates the WaveMap for a particular instrument/pickup rig by simultaneously monitoring the pickup signal and a "training" mic signal and figuring out what processing it will take to get from pickup signal A to mic signal B. (A pretty impressive feat, IMO.) That results in the necessary WaveMap (set of processing instructions) which is saved to be used later (in live performance) with that particular instrument/pickup combination.

In any event, it certainly would seem advantageous to be able to blend the dry pickup signal and the processed (lets call it "Dexterized") pickup signal. Perhaps there's something about the way ToneDexter functions which makes that impractical. It may be quite different from the Aura preamp in that respect. HOPEFULLY, its different. In my experience, a 100% Aura processed signal (with no dry pickup signal blended in) sounds pretty awful in a live setting.

My personal IR does not include Raw pickup signal blending and Martingitdave can testify that it does sound "mic like" he just tried it on his JBL eon one... I did not use it live yet (I don't gig...) but may be MartinGitDave can give his opinion and say if he believes it would sound "pretty awful" in LIVE setting (from his experience).

Unless I'm mistaken, the WaveMap itself is a set of instructions which tells ToneDexter how to process the dry pickup signal to make it near identical to the signal which one would get from miking the guitar at the same time. (Thus eliminating the need for an actual mic, and the resulting feedback problems, in an amplified sound environment.)

ToneDexter creates the WaveMap for a particular instrument/pickup rig by simultaneously monitoring the pickup signal and a "training" mic signal and figuring out what processing it will take to get from pickup signal A to mic signal B. (A pretty impressive feat, IMO.) That results in the necessary WaveMap (set of processing instructions) which is saved to be used later (in live performance) with that particular instrument/pickup combination.
...

Thanks for you very accurate summary of how our WaveMap technology works. It's reassuring to know we are getting our message across.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guitaniac

...

In any event, it certainly would seem advantageous to be able to blend the dry pickup signal and the processed (lets call it "Dexterized") pickup signal. Perhaps there's something about the way ToneDexter functions which makes that impractical. It may be quite different from the Aura preamp in that respect. HOPEFULLY, its different. In my experience, a 100% Aura processed signal (with no dry pickup signal blended in) sounds pretty awful in a live setting.

I'd like to shed a bit more light on this last point. I'll do it here, in this thread, though I suspect a more dedicated thread might a better place. Oh well, we can always be redundant later...

We could blend the raw pickup sound with the "Dexterized" sound. Our process does not preclude it. But we don't do that because it does not sound good. There are several reasons for this: 1. the delay introduced by the pickup-to-mic distance, typically less then 1ms, is represented in the IR and causes comb filtering with the dry pickup, since the raw sound is undelayed. 2. it sounds bad even if it didn't have the delay issue, because the raw pickup usually sounds bad. Period.

So, why do people want to do this? 1. because of previous unsatisfying experiences with competitor's IRs or 2. because they think they may need a more punchy sound.

What folks will soon discover, as soon as we get units to the field, is that the WaveMaps work so well you will no longer feel the need to blend any raw pickup into it. But if you do want a more punchy sound, we have the "character" control which does an interpolation of the minimum phase version of the IR with the full phase version and allows the resultant IR to sound punchier, without any of the harshness of the raw pickup sound.

My personal IR does not include Raw pickup signal blending and Martingitdave can testify that it does sound "mic like" he just tried it on his JBL eon one... I did not use it live yet (I don't gig...) but may be MartinGitDave can give his opinion and say if he believes it would sound "pretty awful" in LIVE setting (from his experience).

Though your DIY IR would certainly be handy for recording, I'd think that live performance would be the main reason for creating such a device. (Recording can always be done with a mic or pair of mics. Getting decent amplified sound at a high level is difficult or impossible with a mic - especially with a mic that's positioned 8" or more in front of the guitar.) Its a good thing that you have someone to try out your IR "in the field", so to speak. I can tell you that Aura and Mama Bear were extensively pre-tested at gigs, and I don't doubt that ToneDexter has been also.

Its a good thing that you have someone to try out your IR "in the field", so to speak.

Actually I don't, the only one who has an IR from me with the pedal to use it live at gig is Doug Young. But he has such a good sound without, he does not need it. I mean in his case, it does not really bring something worth.

Right now my rig is not giggable, I have too much microphony/false contact problems with the Lyric gilgaus mod. If I have one advice about it: Don't customize your LR Baggs Lyric. I wanted to avoir battery in the guitar and I only have problems... With loud pops due to false contact on the phantom power or cable microphony... There is a good reason why a preamp should be as close as possible to the pickup. It would have been wiser to wire the power supply externally than doing this mod. Recently my cable has start behaving as a giant condenser mic that is as sensitive as the Lyric itself...

To come back to the main subject, in one month we will have the first feedback on the Tonedexter and I am pretty sure people are going to be convinced.

James May wrote:

Quote:

the WaveMaps work so well you will no longer feel the need to blend any raw pickup into it

I can definitely believe that. My process does not need raw pickup blending and I believe it is not as advanced as Tonedexter's. I mean they have been working on it since 2014-2015, I've work on it 2 months in the evening when the kids are in bed. They have been doing some really serious work on it. I've spent an evening trying to make a

Quote:

"character" control"

following the patent... and that's not as that easy !! I get the "punch" thing... but I am not able to have it sound right now... However James May last post may have given me a clue about something I did totally wrong.

The only thing I hope is that Audiosprockets wisely choose its European distribution so that we, european, don't have to pay 40% extra for a Tonedexter.

Thanks for you very accurate summary of how our WaveMap technology works. It's reassuring to know we are getting our message across.

I'd like to shed a bit more light on this last point. I'll do it here, in this thread, though I suspect a more dedicated thread might a better place. Oh well, we can always be redundant later...

We could blend the raw pickup sound with the "Dexterized" sound. Our process does not preclude it. But we don't do that because it does not sound good. There are several reasons for this: 1. the delay introduced by the pickup-to-mic distance, typically less then 1ms, is represented in the IR and causes comb filtering with the dry pickup, since the raw sound is undelayed. 2. it sounds bad even if it didn't have the delay issue, because the raw pickup usually sounds bad. Period.

So, why do people want to do this? 1. because of previous unsatisfying experiences with competitor's IRs or 2. because they think they may need a more punchy sound.

What folks will soon discover, as soon as we get units to the field, is that the WaveMaps work so well you will no longer feel the need to blend any raw pickup into it. But if you do want a more punchy sound, we have the "character" control which does an interpolation of the minimum phase version of the IR with the full phase version and allows the resultant IR to sound punchier, without any of the harshness of the raw pickup sound.

James,

Thanks for weighing in on a) why ToneDexter doesn't provide for blending the processed signal with the dry pickup signal, and b) what ToneDexter does do to accommodate the users who'll want a punchier sound to cut through a busy mix and/or noisy environment.

I'd like to pose a theoretical question involving ToneDexter and Martin's Matrix VT Enhance system (the original subject of this thread).

Let's say that I made two WaveMaps for this guitar. WaveMap A would be made with the pickup system's tone control set for flat (it ranges from flat to an extreme mid cut) and the pickup system's Enhance control set for off. (The Enhance control chooses the amount of SBT signal added to the UST signal.) WaveMap B would be made with the tone control set for flat and the Enhance control set for full on.

Presuming that I used the correct pickup settings with their corresponding WaveMaps:

a) Would the guitar's processed tone be nearly the same for both WaveMaps?

b) Would WaveMap B, in conjunction with the pickup system's Enhance control being full on, yield a more top-responsive processed sound than WaveMap A (in conjunction with the Enhance control being full off)?

c) Would WaveMap B, in conjunction with the Enhance control being full on, yield a processed sound which is more feedback prone than WaveMap A (in conjunction with the Enhance control being full off)?

My guess is that the "Dexterized" tone would be very similar sounding for both scenarios, but with scenario B yielding a more top responsive and feedback prone signal. Even considering that the scenario B signal might be more feedback prone, I can see some useful versatility in having the Matrix VT Enhance system and a ToneDexter loaded with two WaveMaps to accommodate the two different pickup control settings described above.

I'd like to pose a theoretical question involving ToneDexter and Martin's Matrix VT Enhance system (the original subject of this thread).

Let's say that I made two WaveMaps for this guitar. WaveMap A would be made with the pickup system's tone control set for flat (it ranges from flat to an extreme mid cut) and the pickup system's Enhance control set for off. (The Enhance control chooses the amount of SBT signal added to the UST signal.) WaveMap B would be made with the tone control set for flat and the Enhance control set for full on.

Presuming that I used the correct pickup settings with their corresponding WaveMaps:

a) Would the guitar's processed tone be nearly the same for both WaveMaps?

b) Would WaveMap B, in conjunction with the pickup system's Enhance control being full on, yield a more top-responsive processed sound than WaveMap A (in conjunction with the Enhance control being full off)?

c) Would WaveMap B, in conjunction with the Enhance control being full on, yield a processed sound which is more feedback prone than WaveMap A (in conjunction with the Enhance control being full off)?

My guess is that the "Dexterized" tone would be very similar sounding for both scenarios, but with scenario B yielding a more top responsive and feedback prone signal. Even considering that the scenario B signal might be more feedback prone, I can see some useful versatility in having the Matrix VT Enhance system and a ToneDexter loaded with two WaveMaps to accommodate the two different pickup control settings described above.

a) Yes, the sonic result would be nearly the same.

b) Yes

c) I don't have any experience with VT enhance yet. That said, the answer is it probably would be more feedback prone. The physics can't be avoided. But the difference in feedback susceptibility may be small enough not to matter in all but the most extremely loud environments because we mitigate feedback issues in our WaveMap.

c) I don't have any experience with VT enhance yet. That said, the answer is it probably would be more feedback prone. The physics can't be avoided. But the difference in feedback susceptibility may be small enough not to matter in all but the most extremely loud environments because we mitigate feedback issues in our WaveMap.

Very cool. With ToneDexter and a Matrix VT Enhance-equipped guitar, you could have both a top tapping-friendly rig and a somewhat less feedback susceptible rig for more extreme situations. Of course, that would also be true for any guitar which is equipped with both a soundboard pickup and an undersaddle or in-saddle pickup. One could make a WaveMap for each pickup and have both a WaveMap to tap, and a WaveMap to zap through the clap trap.

The only drawback is that you have two A/D stages for nothing. And the first Aura image will introduce some latency/delay for nothing.

+ Fishman Aura eats the battery.

What is your first comment related to, Cuki? It doesn't seem to have any relevance to my last comments about creating two ToneDexter WaveMaps to accommodate two different control settings of the Matrix VT Enhance system. (One setting for the pure UST signal, and one setting for a blend of UST signal plus SBT signal.) You can only use one WaveMap at a time, and you'd use the one which corresponds to how the pickup system's controls are set. If the pickup is set for a pure UST signal, you'd use the WaveMap which was created while monitoring the pure UST signal.

I'd certainly agree that the Aura Spectrum preamp is a battery eater, but on the plus side, it CAN be used with batteries. That's an advantage for situations which require a rapid setup.

What I meant is that you can not turn off the Aura imaging with the Aura Enhance VT.

You can with any F1 Aura or Retro. But with the Aura Enhance VT, the signal always go through A/D, IR convolution, D/A stages. You can not choose the image, you can not dial the amount of raw pickup. Everything is set.

So when you get this signal into your Tonedexter, it has already experience some kind of latency + the IR that gives the distance to the mic.

When your signal gets into the Tonedexter, it will again go through A/D, IR convolution, D/A stages, increasing latency and loosing dynamics.

That's all I say. Note that it's not a big deal. If you run a TC Helicon Play acoustic, a dbx GoRack and run into a portable line array with its DSP your signal will experience again 3 times those conversion.

Some people don't like latency accumulation and dynamic loss.

It is exactly as if someone uses a guitar with a UST and chain a Fishman Aura pedal and a Tonedexter... In this case the Fishman Aura does not bring anything to the table... It justs eats battery, dynamic and time.

What I meant is that you can not turn off the Aura imaging with the Aura Enhance VT.

You can with any F1 Aura or Retro. But with the Aura Enhance VT, the signal always go through A/D, IR convolution, D/A stages. You can not choose the image, you can not dial the amount of raw pickup. Everything is set.

So when you get this signal into your Tonedexter, it has already experience some kind of latency + the IR that gives the distance to the mic.

When your signal gets into the Tonedexter, it will again go through A/D, IR convolution, D/A stages, increasing latency and loosing dynamics.

That's all I say. Note that it's not a big deal. If you run a TC Helicon Play acoustic, a dbx GoRack and run into a portable line array with its DSP your signal will experience again 3 times those conversion.

Some people don't like latency accumulation and dynamic loss.

It is exactly as if someone uses a guitar with a UST and chain a Fishman Aura pedal and a Tonedexter... In this case the Fishman Aura does not bring anything to the table... It justs eats battery, dynamic and time.

Now I understand what you were referring to. In the case of the Matrix VT Enhance, however, there is no onboard Aura system and no Aura sound image being used. My friend has a 15 series Martin with the much simpler Matrix VT Enhance system, so there's no Aura to worry about.

Martin put the Aura VT Enhance systems in some of the higher end 2016 models, like the guitar which SpruceTop has. When it comes to being compatible with ToneDexter, I imagine the simpler Matrix VT Enhance will be just as compatible as the Aura VT Enhance, if not more compatible (for the reason you've brought up).